Editor:
Marcy Burstiner recently made some comments that questioned the inclusion in the Times-Standard of an editorial page that was a remnant of the defunct The Eureka Reporter (“Media Maven,” Jan .1) A reader passionately disagreed with Ms. Burstiner (“Mailbox,” Jan. 8). While my own stridency sometimes disqualifies me from reasonable discourse, I must offer my own pejoratives on The Eureka Reporter offerings.
I am basically inclined to give the benefit of doubt, so when I see editorials by Peter Hannaford I try to remain receptive to his alternative views. And, certainly, being reasonable is a goal to which we should all aspire. But when I read his editorial in the Times-Standard (Jan. 18) on G.W. Bush’s exiting the stage with a final goodbye that Hannaford saw as “reflective, good-humored, philosophical, and assertive” I had to stifle the regurge factor. I saw Bush’s speech as distorted, oblivious, superficial, and pig-headed. Take your pick, but approval ratings in the twenties indicate that few people feel that Bush deserves defending.
So, although alternative, even extreme, views deserve exposure, we must still wonder why the Times-Standard is willing to provide a forum for such ‘oblivious, superficial’ writing. And nowhere is this better personified than in Hannaford’s selection of Thomas Sowell as his primary columnist. Sowell is not a “conservative columnist,” he is a dishonest hack who takes a position and then marshals statements in deceptive array to advance his argument. Often false in premise, and syllogistically false in presentation, his writing represents the nadir in reasonable discourse.
For example, let’s look at one of Sowell’s recent columns (Times-Standard, Jan. 19). Sowell attempted to thrust a premise where premises should not go by piling one questionable assertion on top of another. His central theme was that politics is primarily “the art of the impossible.” He attempts to establish his notion of contradictory impossibility by quoting a fellow economist who asserts that nothing “could prevent the California electorate from simultaneously demanding low electricity prices and no new generating plants, while using ever greater amounts of electricity.” A superficial reading of this suggests appositional yearnings, yet there is no inconsistency.
Let’s take each premise in turn. The quest for lower prices is a basic consideration in every sector and at every level of our society. Nothing wrong here, but it is coupled with the implication that resistance to new generating plants is uniformly counterproductive. Even Sowell is aware of the many ways the unregulated proliferation of power generation methods degrades the environment and contributes to the inflation of costs in ways not always obvious. But he disingenuously maligns the relation of the first two positions by appending a third that is unctuous to the utmost. Electricity use is expanding because of population increases and increases in our ways of using electricity. Controlling prices and controlling power generation are not nullified because of greater use — they are mandated by it.
But why let logic interfere with a good polemic? It is not that all conservative writers are dishonest. On the same page as Sowell’s diatribe, the very excellent Kathleen Parker offers a trenchant view on the perils to the American dream. But writers such as Sowell, M. Malkin, M. Reagan and W. Rusher make no pretense at objectivity and instead contribute to a dedicated misinformation campaign. Because there are some readers who feel assuaged when getting their dose of propaganda does not mean polemical distortions should go unchallenged.
When Burstiner excoriates the Times-Standard for including an editorial page from The Eureka-Reporter she is not being uncharitable. She is exercising reportorial examination of misleading writing and blatant falsehoods masquerading as good sense. That is the basic responsibility of all writers.
— Larry Hourany, McKinleyville
Sweet Spot:* The all-star Kinch-Crlenjak-Hourany juggernaut marks up another win *in re: The Eureka Reporter. Larry Hourany gets a Bon Boniere sundae for sending our favorite letter of the week.
This article appears in Love me, I’m a Lamprey.
This guy gets a sundae? Please.
I read Sowell’s article. His opinion is that the government cannot provide lower prices and lower supply when there is increasing demand without using taxpayer dollars. Hourany does nothing to dispute this short of using pompous vocabulary such as unctuous, polemic, and excoriates.
Hourany is correct in only one point, that Sowell is not a "conservative columnist." Correct, he is a libertarian/free-market columnist.
As for the "the very excellent Kathleen Parker…" some people consider her "the very elitist Kathleen Parker." I personally disagree with her article recommending that the Republican party dump people such as Sarah Palin. Most of us would rather leave that kind of elitist attitude to another political party.
Sowell 2-9-9
Oh mi god—Sowell is a libertarian, not a conservative writer. That changes everything. Well, maybe we can still examine what my critic claims is Sowell’s thesis: Bad policies are ultimately paid for by the taxpayers. This may be true, and it is certainly consistent with Sowell’s general position. But when he goes on to say that Sowell’s main point is that “lower prices and lower supply when there is increasing demand” cannot be achieved by the government “without using taxpayer dollars,” he is going way beyond anything Sowell actually said. Sowell is addressing government policies and programs, not the direct production of electricity. Consistent with his earlier positions, Sowell is apparently questioning control or regulation of the market. But even free-marketeers should be leery of deregulation after Enron and the current deregulation fiasco.
And, oh dear—Mr Whoeverheis took me to task for my—frivolous?—use of words. Yes, I do like to play with words. Since he/she didn’t like my “unctuous to the utmost” I could just say Sowell is “supremely hypocritical and misleading.” But I suggest to my critic that it is the meaning that prevails. So, instead of calling me a “pompous writer” he could have called me an “accurate writer.”
There is a process called ‘confirmation bias’ that influences the way we see the world. The process has three main features: detection, denial, and distortion. When all three are involved in the perception of an event, we are left with little of substance. Perhaps I can offset my critic’s empty calories with an ice cream sundae.